Checked out the free sample and it also screams LLM written.
I don't have a problem with using llms for projects per se if it helps, so long as there is a vision, but why would anyone buy an introductory book to a popular language which the same llm could one-shot? What's the added value here?
Maybe 'journalism' wasn't the best suggestion by the OP but I have to disagree with the rest of your message. It may be a rant, or less pejoratively it may be a cry for help of someone seeing their industry's future, but I can't accept that it's not well written.
When is the last time you opened an HN comment section and the main comment was that people enjoyed the writing quality? Maybe it says more about what we usually read as a crowd, but to me this was a breath of fresh air, it was engaging but also quite deep at times.
I think the mark of great writing is that it makes an impression on you, on others, in a way casual writing doesn't. At least that's my take on this.
I commented only because I didn't think it was particularly well written, and I found the threaD to be full of people commenting on how well written it was.
It's highly personalized and interesting, but I wouldn't call it well written.
As a personal bit of art - 'thumbs up', but anything else is overstated.
But more appropriately, the nihilism on this thread is unhinged.
"seeing their industry's future" ???
I'm seeing people empowered to do the most spectacular things that they have ever done in their lives.
Software hiring on the aggregate is up, job postings are up, people are doing more, non-developers get to tinker.
Speculative money is coming into the industry for people to try wild new things.
The implied reality in the story is totally detached from reality.
Surely - there is a movement of people who lament a sense of loss of control, but that's normal with change.
There are also people in crappy jobs with crappy bosses in crappy companies doing crappy things - but that's not a feature of AI or the industry, in fact, software is a pretty good place, relatively speaking.
As I said, this is a reflection of someone's state of mind, mood, being interpreted as some kind of metaphor, but it just doesn't line up with reality in general. A personal reality sure, but that's not a reflection of the community.
> I didn't think it was particularly well written, and I found the threaD to be full of people commenting on how well written it was.
Here is a thought that seems not to have occurred to you.
All these people saying it's good. You commented multiple times to say you disagree and think it is bad.
Maybe that means you do not get it. Maybe the problem here is you and your reading and your lack of comprehension. Maybe the problem is not in the article and the way the article is written.
> I commented only because I didn't think it was particularly well written, and I found the threaD to be full of people commenting on how well written it was.
While "well-written" is subjective, the bar for "well-written" is whether people enjoyed reading it and the author managed to deliver his message.
I'm now very curious what bar you personally use for well-written, because it obviously differs from the majority of the people in this thread.
> A personal reality sure, but that's not a reflection of the community.
You say, to the community, as it describes how it relates to the message.
You may not agree with it, but surely this thread among many should show you this view is not fringe or denial, but how a strong segment feels. I concede it's a divisive topic, some people feel optimistic, others less so. I myself don't fully know where I stand. I just don't agree with branding all of this as "unhinged nihilism".
I was quite psyched when I read this so maybe I can tell you why it's interesting to me, although I agree the announcement could have done a better job at it.
In my experience, the only thing data fields share is SQL (analysts, scientists and engineers). As you said, you could do the same in R, but your project may not be written in R, or Python, but it likely uses an SQL database and some engine to access the data.
Also I've been using marimo notebooks a lot of analysis where it's so easy to write SQL cells using the background duckdb that plotting directly from SQL would be great.
And finally, I have found python APIs for plotting to be really difficult to remember/get used to. The amount of boilerplate for a simple scatterplot in matplotlib is ridiculous, even with a LLM. So a unified grammar within the unified query language would be pretty cool.
I share your pain. You might enjoy Plotnine for python, helps ease the pain. The only bad thing about ggplot is that once you learn it you start to hate every other plotting system. Iteration is so fast, and it is so easy to go from scrappy EDA plot to publication-quality plotting, it just blows everything else out of the water.
But isn't this then just another tool that you're including in your project? I don't get why I would want to add this as a visualization tool to a project, if it's already using R, or Python, etc...
I mean, is it to avoid loading the full data into a dataframe/table in memory?
I just don't see what the pain point this solves is. ggplot solves quite a lot of this already, so I don't doubt that the authors know the domain well. I just don't see the why this.
Well there's always going to be a dependency anyway: loading the data, making it a dataframe, visualizing it, this might be 3 libraries already.
In a sense I really get your complaint. It's the xkcd standard thing all over, we now have a new competing standard.
I think for me it's not so much the ggplot connection, or the fact that I won't need a dataframe library.
It's that this might be the first piece of a standard way of plotting: no matter which backend (matplotlib, vega, ggplot), no matter how you are getting your data (dataframes, database), where you're doing this (Jupyter or marimo notebook, python script, R, heck lokkerstudio?). You could have just one way of defining a plot. That's something I've genuinely dreamt about.
And what makes this different from yet another library api to me is that it's integrated within SQL. SQL has already won the query standardisation battle, so this is a very promising idea for the visualization standardisation.
I see, that's insightful. At first sight I thought of it as a kind of novelty, extending SQL with a visual grammar to integrate with a specific plotting library. But from your comments I can now imagine it has potential as a general solution for that space between data - wherever it comes from, it can typically be queried by SQL - and its visualization.
Thinking further, though, there might be value in extracting the specs of this "grammar of graphics" from SQL syntax and generalized, so other languages can implement the same interface.
I completely agree, and I think this is also where I'm quite excited. This project's connection with ggplot
, which has one of the most respected grammar for plotting, means that it would be in a good position to achieve what you describe.
I would even add that it fits into a more general trend where operations are done within SQL instead of in a script/program which would use SQL to load data. Examples of this are duckdb in general, and BigQuery with all its LLM or ML functions.
I did try this, but for whatever reason it kept getting added back automatically. I forget the details of exactly why it was happening because it was close to a year ago, and in the compatibility guide it says this is supported, but I'm not sure if it was at the time or I was running into something different. This was a contract gig for me where I knew it would be ending within a month or so, which meant I didn't bother spending a ton of time trying to figure out a long-term solution.
Interesting, I tried on a recent version so who knows? I do find that sometimes jj is a bit precious with ignored files if the file exists before the ignore rule, even if you untrack. In those situations I almost always "delete/recreate" after the rule is added.
reply